Haryana

Ambala

CC/197/2014

INKAL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AUTOPACE NETWORK - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        :   197 of 2014

                                                          Date of Institution         :   04.08.2014

                                                          Date of decision   :   28.08.2017

          Inkal Kumar son of Sh. Ram Chander resident of house No.2737/2          Kaziwara, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

1. Autopace Network (Pvt.) ltd; 112-113, Industrial Area Phase- I, Chandigarh.  
2. Eakansh wheels, KM Stone 126, Village Tepla, Stage Highway No.5, Jagadhri road, Ambala Cantt.
3. M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd; plot No.1 Basant Kunj, Nelson Mandela Road, New Dehli.

….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Complainant in person along with Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate.

                   OP No.1 already exparte.

                   Sh. U.S. Chauhan, counsel for OP No.2.

                   Sh. Keshav Sharma, counsel for OP No.3.

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant has purchased one Maruti Swift VDI-SMRDCD1 from OP No.1 vide invoice No.VSL13002233 dated 17.01.2014 for Rs.5,97,007.10/-  which bears engine No.D13A-0401057 colour silky silver-Z2S. Further submitted that since the date of purchase the said car is not giving proper service like back gear not operating, left hand door (back side) – welded patches, Left hand bumper front sheet – defective patched, Model of vehicle-2013, residuary scratches and disappearance of colour from the nut of engine. Further submitted that after purchasing of the said vehicle, the complainant approached to OP No.2 vide job card retail cash memo dated 22.02.2014 but the vehicle was not made road worthy and not replaced/ repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant by the OPs. Complainant further submitted that OP No.1 has cheated the complainant by giving the above said defective vehicle and has committed offences punishable under Criminal Procedure Code as the Old car was sold to the complainant and as per publication in the News Paper Dainik Bhasker dated 06.04.2014 published by OP No.3 as there is defect in 2013-14 Model Swift Maruti Desire Care and same be called back by the company. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs No. 2 and 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate replies, however, OP No.1 did not join the proceedings of the case and was proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 06.02.2015. OP No.1 in his written statement submitted that the complainant came to the workshop of the OP only on 22.02.2014 for running repair and after general check up & inspection of the vehicle it was found that some adjustment is required in bonet and fender and the same was conveyed to the complainant but the complainant refused to get it repair from the workshop of OP NO.2 and the complainant took his car and went away and complainant never visited again to the workshop of OP NO.2 for any kind of service and OP NO.2 never repaired or serviced the car in question of the complainant. Further submitted that all allegation levied in the complaint against the OP No.2 are wholly misconceived, groundless, false untenable in law besides being extraneous and irrelevant having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter under reference and OP NO.2 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                   On the other hand, OP No.3 in his written statement submitted that the vehicle given to the complainant was brand new and defect free and all the vehicles which are manufactured are sent to the dealers only after passing the FCOK test. Further submitted that the complainant after satisfying himself with the working of the car had taken the delivery and the complainant never reported any problem as alleged at the time of First & Second Free service of the vehicle and the only problem which the complainant reported on 22.02.2014 was of noise from door when the vehicle was brought for running repairs but refused to get the job done. All the three free services were carried out as per the periodic service schedule and no problem/defect was observed. It is pertinent to mention here that the vehicle was brought for accident repairs/ Body repairs on 14.08.2014 at a mileage of 13,490k.m. i.e. just few days prior to filing to the present complaint. Further submitted that the complainant is trying to take benefit of the newspaper article in which the company on its own had recalled swift dzire vehicles for inspecting the Fuel Neckfiller and replaced the same and the said problem was in the locking portion of the fuel filler where the cork is put to avoid leakage of fuel when the tank is full and the said problem has no effect on the performance of the car. It is also submitted that the problems alleged by complainant are not related in any manner to the above stated issued I the fuel neckfiller of the cars recalled for repairs by the company. So, OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-8 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No. 2 has also tendered affidavits as Annexure R-Y alongwith with documents as Annexure R-1 and closed his evidence as well as counsel for OP No. 3 has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R3-X alongwith documents Annexure R3-A to Annexure R3-C and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. The complainant has purchased the vehicle in question on 17.01.2014 as per Annexure C-1 invoice and Sale Certificate Annexure C-2. It is mentioned in the Sale Certificate month and year manufactured May 2013 and complainant has got the vehicle registered with the Registration Authority on 21.04.2014 as per Annexure C-3. The main grievance of the complainant is that since the date of purchased the said car is not given the proper service and same is having fully in defect i.e. back gear not operating, left hand door (back side) – welded patches, Left hand bumper front sheet – defective patched, Model of vehicle-2013, residuary scratches and disappearance of colour from the nut of engine. Complainant visited the service centre i.e. OP No.2 for service on 22.02.2014 but in the job card, it has not been mentioned that what type of defect arose in the vehicle in question after its purchased. The OPs have placed on record the history of the vehicle in question regarding visiting in the service centre for service of the vehicle but nothing has been mentioned in the first job card dt. 29.01.2014 regarding any type of defect in the vehicle in question and the vehicle was brought to the service centre for general checkup being first free service. Perusal of the second service dated 22.02.2014 job card/vehicle history clearly shows that the vehicle in question is checked and found adjustment required in the bonut and fender customer by reused and as per the third job card dated 07.04.2014 which was issued for getting second free service done by the service centre and  nothing has been shown regarding any type of defect in the vehicle in question as well as the fourth job card dated 30.06.2014 when the vehicle was brought to the service centre for general checkup being third free service in which clearly mentioned that general checkup, turning noise check, reverse gear hard A/c C. There is no manufacture defect found in the vehicle in question as per the above said vehicle history. On the other hand, counsel for complainant neither rebutted the history of the vehicle in question nor placed any expert report/opinion regarding the defect of the vehicle in question as well as complainant has not moved any application under section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act is relevant in present case which says “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which conanot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of  forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”. In this way, the complainant failed to prove his case in the absence of cogent evidence and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on :28.08.2017                                               Sd/-

                                                                               (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

                                                                             

                                                                            Sd/-

           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member